What would be Sachin Tendulkar’s legacy if he had also been a great captain?

[Slog]

Discuss.

And from the people who watched cricket during his captaincy years why exactly was he a bad captain?

 

[jnaveen1980]

Captaincy, leadership require skills like man management, strategy, tough-mindedness. Even though Ganguly was lesser of the Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar, he was the best in leadership as he was able to rally his team around.

 

[Saj]

The strange thing for me is that I don't remember anything about his captaincy which tells me that it wasn't impressive or eye-catching.

From what I recall there were some big personalities in the team at the time he was skipper.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Slightly greater than what it is now.

 

[jnaveen1980]

The strange thing for me is that I don't remember anything about his captaincy which tells me that it wasn't impressive or eye-catching.

From what I recall there were some big personalities in the team at the time he was skipper.

Reason is he realized soon enough that he was not cut out to be the captain. I appreciate him for that.

 

[sweep_shot]

Tendulkar was too soft to be a captain. I think he succeeded due to not being a captain. Captaincy burden could've ruined his game.

 

[Hasan123]

Problem for Tendulkar was he was captaning a poor team. All the hopes were on him. If he failed and India lost, all the blame would be on him. You can't blame a individual for a team losing. We don't understand the pressure he under . A billion people expected him to perform and his team knew if he didn't, they would lose. That is not very easy to deal with. This is why I rate Kohli extremely highly as a captain. I don't think people understand how difficult it is for him to maintain his performances with the amount of pressure he is under.

I think if he had a better quality team , he would have done a decent job as captain.

PP think captaincy is all about tactics. It's not all about tactics. If a player leads from the front it can raise the performance of the whole team. Most of the great captains led from the front . Also a player will earn captaincy through performing so it will matter even more when you are actually captain.

His legacy is still great, but had he been a successful captain it may have been slightly higher. But not every player is a great captain .

 

[sshakir411]

Given how much he prolonged his career and how much the Indian fans wanted him to keep going my guess is he’d still be their captain

 

[topspin]

If Tendulkar was a great captain he would have finished the game as the greatest player of all time.

Before the old era hype brigade jump in, I'm not interested in the accomplishment of players in the amateur days of cricket. It's a travesty that professional cricketers have to be compared with them.

 

[sshakir411]

Problem for Tendulkar was he was captaning a poor team. All the hopes were on him. If he failed and India lost, all the blame would be on him. You can't blame a individual for a team losing. We don't understand the pressure he under . A billion people expected him to perform and his team knew if he didn't, they would lose. That is not very easy to deal with. This is why I rate Kohli extremely highly as a captain. I don't think people understand how difficult it is for him to maintain his performances with the amount of pressure he is under.

I think if he had a better quality team , he would have done a decent job as captain.

PP think captaincy is all about tactics. It's not all about tactics. If a player leads from the front it can raise the performance of the whole team. Most of the great captains led from the front . Also a player will earn captaincy through performing so it will matter even more when you are actually captain.

His legacy is still great, but had he been a successful captain it may have been slightly higher. But not every player is a great captain .

Starts post with:

”Problem for Tendulkar was he was captaning a poor team.”

Ends with:

“If a player leads from the front it can raise the performance of the whole team.”

The best batsman of his time with performances that gave him the title couldn’t “raise the performance” of his team. Contradicting your own self.

 

[satheesh]

firstly , he couldn't have been a great captain by any stretch. He already was carrying 'out of the world amount of pressure' on his shoulders to go with a comparatively weak team & a few match fixers at his disposal. To manage all that would have been broken him which in reality was what actually happend.

People talk about great captains like Lloyd, Richards,Steve Waugh,Imran,Ganguly,Ponting etc etc but they conveniently forget that they had calibre players especially bowler in their team to yield results.

 

[jaisan]

Under Tendulkar captaincy India played more in overseas than home tests when every team had stronger bowling than India.

 

[sshakir411]

firstly , he couldn't have been a great captain by any stretch. He already was carrying 'out of the world amount of pressure' on his shoulders to go with a comparatively weak team & a few match fixers at his disposal. To manage all that would have been broken him which in reality was what actually happend.

People talk about great captains like Lloyd, Richards,Steve Waugh,Imran,Ganguly,Ponting etc etc but they conveniently forget that they had calibre players especially bowler in their team to yield results.

If that’s the bar to judge someone by then Wasim is Sachin x 5...because of the all the players mentioned in the Qayum report. Fact is.. sachin was the greatest batsman but nothing much else. Even his stellar performances could not lift his team’s game.

 

[MP2011]

Even his stellar performances could not lift his team’s game.

Doesn't it say a lot about his team mates than the man himself? Besides, he never had any bowlers worthy enough to talk about, especially for overseas tests.

I agree it says a lot about his own selection policies as well but he wasn't as strong a captain as say Kohli is or Dhoni was. Indian cricket officialdom in '90s was just like Indian bureaucracy.

 

[MP2011]

Under Tendulkar captaincy India played more in overseas than home tests when every team had stronger bowling than India.

Yeah, under him India played a lot of overseas tests. Under him, India still won home series just like it did earlier, with only blot being that 0-2 test series loss against Cronje led SA, his last assignment as captain in any form of the game.

 

[MP2011]

The strange thing for me is that I don't remember anything about his captaincy which tells me that it wasn't impressive or eye-catching.

From what I recall there were some big personalities in the team at the time he was skipper.

He wasn't mature enough to handle them. For all his macho image, Kohli can't handle Dhoni the way he probably would have wanted. It's not everybody's cup of tea. Not everyone could be a Graeme Smith.

 

[big_gamer007]

One person can only take so much pressure. He had expectations of 1 billion Indians alone for batting, captaincy would have made him depressed or break his mind completely. He tried and couldn't cope up with pressure so he moved on.

If he would have been a great captain then it means he would have made us win tournaments as batsmen and captain both. Would be higher than what he is even today.

 

[Hasan123]

Starts post with:

”Problem for Tendulkar was he was captaning a poor team.”

Ends with:

“If a player leads from the front it can raise the performance of the whole team.”

The best batsman of his time with performances that gave him the title couldn’t “raise the performance” of his team. Contradicting your own self.

I think he could not deal with the pressure of being the best player and captain at the same time which is understandable.

You do need quality players in international cricket to be a good team.

 

[Dead Ball]

Tendulkar would be remembered as the greatest cricketer of all time had he -

- been a moderately successful captain
- finished the game in Chennai against Pakistan (thereby getting an ATG test knock under his belt)
- scored a century in a world cup final against SL or Aus.
- retired when he won the 2011 WC for India.

 

[Dead Ball]

Tendulkar would be remembered as the greatest cricketer of all time had he -

- been a moderately successful captain
- finished the game in Chennai against Pakistan (thereby getting an ATG test knock under his belt)
- scored a century in a world cup final against SL or Aus.
- retired when he won the 2011 WC for India.

Scoring his 100th ton at home in a WC Final is the stuff dreams are made of. Would have been so fitting for him to retire having won the team a WC scoring his 100th ton at home in front of thousands of adoring fans. Instead of that dreadful century against Bangladesh which cost India the match.

 

[satheesh]

If I remember correctly he bowled a lot as captain.

I think if he had been a great captain he would have been bigger than Modi in India.

Sachin is the most adored person in India . A politician can never get that sort of 'respect from the heart' that Sachin gets.

 

[sshakir411]

I think he could not deal with the pressure of being the best player and captain at the same time which is understandable.

You do need quality players in international cricket to be a good team.

Wait...so a Captain leading from the front does not lift the team’s performance?

 

[sshakir411]

Doesn't it say a lot about his team mates than the man himself? Besides, he never had any bowlers worthy enough to talk about, especially for overseas tests.

I agree it says a lot about his own selection policies as well but he wasn't as strong a captain as say Kohli is or Dhoni was. Indian cricket officialdom in '90s was just like Indian bureaucracy.

His team mates were Dravid, Ganguly, etc..hardly below par. Also had Srinath and Kumble..these are India’s finest players from the last generation.

 

[MP2011]

His team mates were Dravid, Ganguly, etc..hardly below par. Also had Srinath and Kumble..these are India’s finest players from the last generation.

That tells me that you don't know enough about Indian cricket of '90s!

If you read closely what I wrote, I clearly said 'during away tests'. Also, Dravid and Ganguly came into 2nd half of '96, with Dravid being an abject failure in tough away tests save that '97 Jo'burg test.

While Kumble has always been a dud in away tests save his last few tests. Srinath, never consistent enough which shows in his test bowling average.

So you see unlike other test playing nations, India had a rubbish bowling attack for its away tests, even Zimbabwe had a better bowling attack than us, that should tell you something about why we were crap in away tests during '90s!

 

[Obaidd]

Scoring his 100th ton at home in a WC Final is the stuff dreams are made of. Would have been so fitting for him to retire having won the team a WC scoring his 100th ton at home in front of thousands of adoring fans. Instead of that dreadful century against Bangladesh which cost India the match.

Do you think that innings has affected his legacy?

 

[Dingolfy]

Do you think that innings has affected his legacy?

Absolutely Yes. That was a horrible selfish innings for the 100 century record. He was done and dusted by then. But at-least he acknowledged it faster than current Dhoni and retired much earlier.

 

[Dingolfy]

A captain is as good as his team. Sachin was the only world-class player in Indian team in the early 90’s and no one in the world could have made those team world beaters.

 

[MenInG]

India under Sachin Tendulkar's ODI captaincy

Won: 23
Lost: 43
Tied: 1
Abandoned: 6

 

[Ab Fan]

He would have been the greatest cricketer of all-time.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

Problem for Tendulkar was he was captaning a poor team. All the hopes were on him. If he failed and India lost, all the blame would be on him. You can't blame a individual for a team losing. We don't understand the pressure he under . A billion people expected him to perform and his team knew if he didn't, they would lose. That is not very easy to deal with. This is why I rate Kohli extremely highly as a captain. I don't think people understand how difficult it is for him to maintain his performances with the amount of pressure he is under.

I think if he had a better quality team , he would have done a decent job as captain.

PP think captaincy is all about tactics. It's not all about tactics. If a player leads from the front it can raise the performance of the whole team. Most of the great captains led from the front . Also a player will earn captaincy through performing so it will matter even more when you are actually captain.

His legacy is still great, but had he been a successful captain it may have been slightly higher. But not every player is a great captain .

This is contradictory post lol.

First you’re saying that he was captaining a poor team and you end with how a great player can elevate a poor team. So Tendulkar isnt great player?

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

A captain is as good as his team. Sachin was the only world-class player in Indian team in the early 90’s and no one in the world could have made those team world beaters.

Laxman, Kumble, Dravid etc weren’t World class?

 

[Hitman]

Laxman, Kumble, Dravid etc weren’t World class?

When has India ever struggled at home? It always been away from home where they have struggled.

Good for you if you consider Kumble a world class spinner away from home. As for Dravid, he started peaking after the 1999 World Cup. As for Laxman, he was ordinary till the 1999 India's tour to Australia. It was in that tour he scored 160 odd in an innings and he really started performing well after the 2001 series against Australia where Ganguly was the captain.

Mohammad Azharuddin was India's second best batsman in the 90's. And do you know how much he averaged away from home. 36, that's how much.

 

[pratiktc]

India in 90s was very lopsided ODI team.
Azhar and Jadeja were good batters but extremely inconsistent and prone to long droughts.
Srinath and Kumble were good bowlers but both had just avg records against SL/Pak/Aus on flat tracks which was majority of ODI cricket India played.

Support players like Manjrekar, Kambli, Mongia played several matches but never really repaid investments. Fact that journeyman player like Robin Singh was only one who exceeded his potential and played so many games says a lot of that squad's quality

All in all SRT had an average team and plus hangover of some senior players, transition problems and lack of much pull with regional selectors who were playing their own games made it difficult for him to produce results.

People like to say that force of personality, born leader blah blah but situation, luck and circumstances often determine how good a captain is allowed to become.

Ganguly had many small advantages which helped him establish credibility and gave him control over team.

Firstly there was clear out of old pros and SRT clearly declined captaincy so there was no rival within dressing room or tensions.

Secondly Ganguly himself had by 2000 matured into ODI matchwinner which gave him credibility and took pressure off SRT. Dravid also had become ensconced as a class player in ODI and Test formats by 2000.

Thirdly, Ganguly was lucky to find 4 good decade long talents - Yuvraj, Zaheer and Sehwag within a year who while they took few yrs to become consistent , were contributing much more as support players per match than the 90s broken records.

Fourth, Ganguly had some early luck with good runs in ICC Knockout and NZ home which gave him a good credit line with fans and board in starting period

Fifth, by 2001 Jagmohan Dalmiya also from Kolkata and Ganguly's long time backer (until their fallout in late 2000s) became president of BCCI. This helped Ganguly consolidate backroom power and get strong influence and veto level input in selectorial meetings unlike SRT who kept getting foisted with players he knew nothing about.

Finally Laxman, Harbhajan, Dravid and SRT won 'that' Aussie Series for Ganguly. Despite a personally poor series with bat and some not too sharp declarations (waiting on 5th day Kolkata about half an hr too late), Ganguly basically had an unlimited credit line as captain by its end. Even a poor result like Zimbabwe 1-1 away wasn't scrutinized much in euphoria of that series win and Ganguly train just kept rolling.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Dude was a victim of politics in his first stint as captain and he categorically refused to captain the side as long as Azhar was in the team. That should tell you a lot about Azhar and his cronies. He also had very little say in who was selected for the squad etc. and was a captain only in name. The BCCI back then did not give a damn about the players. We played 119 ODI's between the 1996 and the 1999 World Cups and our bowlers were bowled into the ground etc. BCCI were completely apathetic to a lot of issues back then. In his 2nd stint, he himself was struggling with a serious back injury and had lost form etc.

 

[Bhaijaan]

What is now a hypothetical argument that Sachin is in fact a greater Cricketers than even Sir Don Bradman would not have been an argument if Sachin had a legendary captaincy reign.

That's about it.

He still is:-
1. Comfortably the second greatest cricketer ever
2. Comfortably the second greatest batsman ever
3. Arguably the greatest cricketer ever
4. Arguably the greatest batsman ever

Secured place in cricketing Mount Rushmore

Secured place in ATG XI of tests and ODIs

 

[shaz619]

Sachin was notorious for scoring soft runs and a proven mental midget in pressure situations, the games he did captain are there for all to see, if he had a longer run he would have no legacy as a batsman

 

[AMSS]

His legacy was affected mostly by how few tests he played in his absolute pomp. In that 8 year chunk from 93 to 2000, he played 59 tests. To compare, in a similar 8 year chunk for Ponting starting from 1999-2006, he played 87 tests.

A colossal difference of 28 tests at their absolute peaks. Basically BCCI's braindead scheduling shafted Tendulkar's numbers by around 3000 runs and 8-10 centuries.

 

[Bhaijaan]

The strange thing for me is that I don't remember anything about his captaincy which tells me that it wasn't impressive or eye-catching.

From what I recall there were some big personalities in the team at the time he was skipper.

The complaint is that he was over active as the leader. Asked bowlers to bowl according to his mindset instead of giving them freedom.

Same with batting. While he was performing at another level, everyone else holding the bat seemed like a disappointment to him.

Also, clearly lacked the comforting attitude of a mature leader. Looked tense all the time as if his life depended on the game of cricket literally.

Overall, I think one of the greatest things that happened to Indian cricket and what rarely gets talked about is in Sachin quietly giving away the reigns to Ganguly and never ever trying to sabotage it, a gesture he continued with future captain's he played under.

It's a negative world. BSing about Sachin's captaincy is a lot more exciting than praising him for being a true gentlemen in giving it away when he had all the power and influence in Indian cricket to take it back when the things got better.

 

[Snowflake]

Would've increased by multiple folds

 

[Bhaijaan]

His legacy was affected mostly by how few tests he played in his absolute pomp. In that 8 year chunk from 93 to 2000, he played 59 tests. To compare, in a similar 8 year chunk for Ponting starting from 1999-2006, he played 87 tests.

A colossal difference of 28 tests at their absolute peaks. Basically BCCI's braindead scheduling shafted Tendulkar's numbers by around 3000 runs and 8-10 centuries.

In hindsight, you are true obviously.

Tendulkar was clearly denied of stat padding during his absolute peak.

But that's not all BCCI's fault. Indian cricket was still not that big in 1990s.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Great explainer and POTW for me.

Ganguly was a great leader. A lot better than Sachin and it's ok. Sachin cannot be everything.

Even in the recent road safety series, I found Sachin's captaincy as cringe worthy as it has always been.

He's arguably the greatest ever. But has poor to average as a captain.

But I will sah one thing, he's a poor captain not because he lost 40 and won 20 but because he just is.

There have been many captain's who have 50%+ or 60%+ winning record and they are probably even below Sachin.

Winning % is not everything

 

[Bhaijaan]

Ganguly is a great captain not because of the series triumphs, Champions trophy win, world cup final campaign etc but because every player who played under him in 2000s days proudly to this day that Ganguly helped them reach their potential. That's what a great captain is.